radonhttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/8479/all
enAfter Over a Decade of Fracking, Oversight of Industry's Radioactive Waste Still Lackinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/16/after-over-decade-fracking-oversight-industry-s-radioactive-waste-still-lacking
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_73342876.jpg?itok=XuTK-foU" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It has been roughly twelve years since fracking launched the great shale rush in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> and the biggest problem with the technology — how to safely dispose of the enormous quantities of toxic waste generated — remains unsolved.</p>
<p>In particular, regulators have struggled to fully understand or police the hazards posed by radioactivity found in fracking waste.</p>
<p>The most common form of radioactivity in shale waste comes from radium-226, which happens also to be an isotope that takes the longest to decay. To be exact, radium-226’s half-life of roughly 1,600 years means that well over a millennium and a half from now, more than half of the radium that fracking brings to the surface today will still be emitting dangerous radioactive particles.</p>
<p>Concern about the waste has taken on renewed urgency in light of a <a href="http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a50/">detailed report</a> published in <em>Environmental Health Perspectives</em> (<span class="caps">EHP</span>), a peer-reviewed scientific journal which is backed by the National Institutes of Health. The study concluded that worrisome and extensive gaps in federal and state oversight of this radioactivity problem still persist.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>At the federal level, radioactive oil and gas waste is exempt from nearly all the regulatory processes the general public might expect would govern it,” the researchers wrote. “State laws are a patchwork.’”</p>
<p>This is not an entirely new finding. Several years ago, a New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?ref=drillingdown">investigative piece</a> highlighted how the oil and gas industry routinely dumped radium-laced waste water into rivers. State regulators in Pennsylvania and the oil and gas industry adamantly denied there was a problem.</p>
<p>So what's changed? The recent academic study concludes that even several years later, worrisome oversight lapses remain. As such, the researchers wrote, there is continuing reason for concern.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>We are troubled by people drinking water that [could potentially have] radium-226 in it,” David Brown, a public health toxicologist with the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, <a href="http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a50/">told</a> the researchers (insert in original). “When somebody calls us and says ‘is it safe to drink our water,’ the answer is ‘I don’t know.’”</p>
<!--break-->
<p>But there is more that makes this recent study important. Much of the public’s attention has focused on the hazards of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington">280 billions of gallons</a> of radioactive wastewater generated every year by drillers. Regulators have found it difficult to keep tabs on how that waste is handled or how it is disposed, often relying on data self-reported by drillers. A study last year found that over half of Marcellus wastewater <a href="http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_fracking_booms_growing_concerns_about_wastewater/2740/">still winds up</a> sent to treatment plants that discharge into rivers and streams.</p>
<p>However, in order to truly keep tabs on all of the radioactive materials from fracking, it’s necessary to understand that the radium often winds up accumulating on the surfaces <span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">it comes into contact with </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">— dirt, pipes and holding tanks.</span></p>
<p>Some of the researchers’ most interesting findings come from a little-noticed study published in 2013 that found that the soil in fracking wastewater pit soil can carry elevated levels of radioactivity, even after drillers pull up stakes and complete their cleanup efforts.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&amp;backto=issue,8,13;journal,6,92;linkingpublicationresults,1:300327,1">that 2013 study</a>, Alisa Rich, professor at the University of North Texas’s School of Public Health, and Ernest Crosby, who spent 28 years as a engineering professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, took a look at the wastewater impoundment pits where drillers often store wastewater before trucking it away for treatment, injection underground or recycling.</p>
<p>Although the study was quite small, based on just two sites on farmland in Texas, its findings were striking.</p>
<p>One of the two pits tested was still actively being used to store fracking wastewater. The other was a site where a pit had been drained and the surface restored and leveled to match the surrounding farmland, where livestock feed was being grown, and the samples were taken from a depth of six inches.</p>
<p>They were surprised to find that the drained pit still showed elevated levels of radioactivity. They wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Data from this limited field study showed elevated levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation to be present in reserve pit/sludge material and also in the soil of a vacated reserve pit after draining and grading to original topographic levels. Based on the use of the pit, the presence of radioactive materials was not anticipated. Agricultural land adjacent to the drained reserve pit may have an increased potential for radioactive material taken up in livestock feed crops growing on the land due to wind transport, runoff and migration of soil on adjacent land.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They cautioned, however, against inferring that all drained pits would show elevated radioactivity, explaining that the radioactivity could have been there before the pit was used to store fracking wastewater, in part because the oil and gas industry’s long history in the region meant that they did not know whether that land already had been contaminated before it was used to store wastewater.</p>
<p>Their unexpected findings indicated, however, that more research is needed into how adequate remediation is when it comes to wastewater impoundments, creating new questions about the adequacy of cleanup regulations for shale gas well sites.</p>
<p>In some states in the Marcellus region, where radioactivity levels are generally higher than in Texas, drillers are permitted to simply bury solid waste like wastewater impoundment liners on site. In West Virginia, for example, drillers may simply <a href="http://marcellus-wv.com/online-courses/waste/marcellus-issues-in-west-virginia-an-introduction-2/marcellus-issues-in-west-virginia-an-introduction-1">bury liners</a> used to store wastewater from vertical gas wells, although they may be required to obtain a landowner’s permission if the well is horizontally drilled. </p>
<p>The propensity for radium to accumulate also raises questions about the metal tanks, trucks and pipes used to transport fracking wastewater.</p>
<p>Combined with other elements like barium or strontium, the radium can form radioactive flakes on metal pipes used to transport the wastewater, for example, a problem that regulators refer to as pipe-scale. In filters, like the ones recently discovered <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3395601/radioactive-oil-socks-found/">illegally dumped </a>in North Dakota, the radioactive materials can also start to build up. If enough radium concentrates in one place, the radiation it produces can become strong enough to potentially penetrate a person’s clothing and skin, making it hazardous to simply be near it.</p>
<p>But the <em>Environmental Health Perspectives</em> review found that there is little oversight to protect workers from radioactive accumulation.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>Workers are covered by some federal radiation protections,” author Valerie J. Brown wrote, “although a 1989 safety bulletin from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration noted that <span class="caps">NORM</span> sources of exposure ‘may have been overlooked by Federal and State agencies in the past.’”</p>
<p>State regulators in Pennsylvania told the researchers that there was no evidence indicating that workers or the public faced a health risk from the radioactivity.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>But given the wide gaps in the data,” Ms. Brown noted, “this is cold comfort to many in the public health community.”</p>
<p><span style="font-size:8px;">Photo Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-73342876/stock-photo-the-earth-oriented-to-asia-surrounded-by-barrels-of-nuclear-waste.html?src=0Q1cvnd_tGByPg27r22prQ-1-79">The Earth, Oriented to Asia surrounded by barrels of nuclear waste</a>, via <em>Shutterstock</em>. </span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7277">shale oil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6879">Radioactive</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8799">Marcellus</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11831">radium</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13209">radium-226</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15908">half life</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15909">decay</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8479">radon</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14033">peer-reviewed</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9871">National Institutes of Health</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15910">fracking pits</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14129">wastewater impoundments</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15911">liners</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14327">barium</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14328">strontium</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10407">remediation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15065">clean up</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15912">buried liners</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15913">Environmental Health Perspectives</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6444">public health</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15914">David Brown</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/917">texas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2625">pennsylvania</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3035">west virginia</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15915">pits</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15612">tests</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15916">alpha radiation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15917">beta radiation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15918">gamma radiation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15919">livestock</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12599">Crops</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12585">soil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15920">dirt</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15921">pipes</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15922">tanks</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14143">workers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11121">OSHA</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1088">North Dakota</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15923">radioactive dumping</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15924">Valerie J. Brown</a></div></div></div>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:00:00 +0000Sharon Kelly8004 at http://www.desmogblog.comAnother Pennsylvania Wastewater Treatment Plant Accused of Illegally Disposing Radioactive Fracking Wastehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/17/another-pennsylvania-wastewater-treatment-plant-accused-illegally-disposing-fracking-radioactive-waste
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/WTC2.jpg?itok=nRqZei6k" width="200" height="120" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>A Pennsylvania industrial wastewater treatment plant has been illegally accepting oil and gas wastewater and polluting the Allegheny river with radioactive waste and other pollutants, according to an environmental group which announced today that it is suing the plant.<br />
<br />
“Waste Treatment Corporation has been illegally discharging oil and gas wastewater since at least 2003, and continues to discharge such wastewater without authorization under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Streams Law,” the notice of intent to sue delivered by Clean Water Action reads.<br />
<br />
Many pollutants associated with oil and gas drilling – including chlorides, bromides, strontium and magnesium – were discovered immediately downstream of the plant’s discharge pipe in Warren, <span class="caps">PA</span>, state regulators discovered in January of this year. Upstream of the plant, those same contaminants were found at levels 1 percent or less than those downstream, or were not present at all.<br />
<br />
State officials also discovered that the sediments immediately downstream from the plant were tainted with high levels of radium-226, radium-228 and uranium. Those particular radioactive elements are known to be found at especially levels in wastewater from Marcellus shale gas drilling and fracking, and state regulators have warned that the radioactive materials would tend to accumulate in river sediment downstream from plants accepting Marcellus waste.<br />
<br />
“To us, that says that they are discharging Marcellus Shale wastewater, although no one admits to sending it to them,” said Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania State Director for Clean Water Action.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>A request for comment sent to Waste Treatment Corporation has not yet been answered.<br />
<br />
The amount of radioactivity found in the Allegheny riverbed is striking. Sediments just downstream of the Waste Treatment Corporation’s discharge pipe contained over 50 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, state records show. To put that number in rough context, the levels in found in the Allegheny are 10 times those that <span class="caps">EPA</span> <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/cleanup.htm">requires</a> the surface soil at cleaned-up uranium mining sites to achieve.<br />
<br />
Most of the radioactive wastes associated with fracking are too weak to cause harm to people unless they are breathed in, drank, or eaten, since the alpha and beta radioactivity they primarily give off is too weak to get past people’s skin. But at the levels discovered by state regulators, the dirt from the Allegheny’s riverbed could potentially be radioactive enough to cause harm to people who are simply near it.<br />
<br />
Once-confidential oil and gas industry <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?pagewanted=4&amp;ref=drillingdown">studies</a> have also pointed to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1.html#document/p417/a9945">another risk</a> from disposing of radioactive materials from drilling or fracking in waterways – the risk to fish and aquatic life like crustaceans and mollusks. Radium bioaccumulates in fish, meaning that the more a fish ingests contaminated water or soil over its lifetime, the more radium it will contain. If people eat those fish, those radioactive materials consumed along with the fish can do harm to people’s internal organs.<br />
<br />
In their January study, state officials did not test fish or other animals like large clams or mussels from the Allegheny to see whether they were carrying radium or other pollutants. But they did study smaller organisms, and concluded that the wastewater being discharged after being processed by Waste Treatment Corporation into the Allegheny was “negatively impacting” aquatic life, specifically bugs, snails and small mollusks in the river. Many pollution-sensitive creatures found upstream of the plant’s discharge pipe were missing downstream from the pipe.</p>
<p>“Those are the base of the food pyramid for large species like fish that people are generally more concerned about,” Mr. Arnowitt said.</p>
<p>Just last month, DeSmog <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/03/radioactive-materials-marcellus-shale-continue-draw-concern">reported</a> that another industrial wastewater treatment plant was sanctioned by the <span class="caps">EPA</span> for illegally discharging untreated Marcellus waste. Environmental regulators also discovered high levels of radium around the discharge pipe at the Pennsylvania Brine Treatment Josephine plant. That plant was fined over $80,000 and the owner agreed to make up to $30 million in upgrades before accepting any more Marcellus shale wastewater.<br />
<br />
The Clean Water Action lawsuit also calls attention to a troubling lack of record keeping for the toxic wastewater generated by the shale drilling boom, raising the possibility that more illegal dumping could be uncovered in the future.<br /><br />
“Currently, there are no companies drilling in the Marcellus Shale that report sending wastewater to <span class="caps">WTC</span> for disposal,” a Clean Water Action statement says, referring to Waste Treatment Corporation by its initials. “However, the presence of radioactive materials in <span class="caps">WTC</span>’s discharge indicates that <span class="caps">WTC</span>’s wastewater likely comes, at least in part, from Marcellus Shale wells.”<br /><br />
In 2011, after problems with wastewater disposal made <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?pagewanted=all">national headlines</a>, many industrial wastewater treatment plants said that they stopped taking Marcellus wastewater and were only taking conventional oil and gas wastewater, Mr. Arnowitt said. But the levels of contaminants – including the ones associated with Marcellus waste – in the discharge at many wastewater plants never changed, he said.<br /><br />
“It was hard to figure out why everyone believed what they were saying,” he added.<br />
<br />
With a track record like this, some Pennsylvanians are skeptical about their state government’s capacity to police the drilling boom. These doubts only deepened when <a href="http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&amp;sessYr=2013&amp;sessInd=0&amp;billBody=S&amp;billTyp=B&amp;billNbr=0259&amp;pn=1290">Senate Bill 259</a> was <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/07/09/corbett-signs-controversial-bill-giving-drillers-power-to-pool-leases/">signed into law</a> by Governor Corbett earlier this month. The bill was originally intended to protect landowners by making royalty payments for people who leased their lands to drillers more transparent.<br />
<br />
But a little-noticed provision slipped into that bill as an amendment has sparked an outcry. The amendment would allow drillers to pool together acreage owned by many different people and drill it all together, even if a lease wouldn’t otherwise allow the oil and gas company to do so. This move will especially facilitate Marcellus shale drilling and fracking, which often involves drilling a well horizontally under many properties.<br /><br />
“This pooling language had no place in this bill,” Trevor Walczak , vice president of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/07/09/corbett-signs-controversial-bill-giving-drillers-power-to-pool-leases/">told local reporters</a>. ”If you wanted to address pooling, we should have been doing it in a stand alone bill we could debate, not hiding it in here and fast-tracking it through.”</p>
<p>State Representative Rep. Garth Everett, who introduced the language in the bill, <a href="http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4303895-74/bill-pooling-provision#axzz2YlOCLYKF">told</a> Pennsylvania’s TribLive he had no idea whether someone from the oil and gas industry suggested to him that provision be included. It drew little attention or debate before the bill was enacted.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I'm serious. I don't know who exactly proposed (that amendment). We had a lot of proposals going into the bill. Legislation is brought to us by staff. I send them ideas, and they put them into a form of legislation and come back. Where the idea came from, who proposed this … section, I don't know who that individual was,” he said.</p>
<p>While Pennsylvania struggles to regulate the drilling industry, local activists are finding success in organizing outside of Harrisburg.<br /><br />
In one of Pennsylvania’s other major watersheds, the Delaware River basin, some are hailing the pull-out announced this week by two natural gas companies, Hess Corporation and Newfield Exploration Company, as a major victory for those looking to protect the Delaware watershed, which provides drinking water to 15 million people, including Philadelphia and half of New York City.</p>
<p>The two companies sent a letter informing roughly 1,300 landowners that they were abandoning plans to drill their holdings in the Delaware river basin. The landowers were part of the Northern Wayne Property Owners Alliance, and had negotiated their lease collectively.</p>
<p>“The lease is gone. It is no longer in force. They are releasing the properties,” the group's spokesman, Peter Wynne, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/AP191f2ae8055d4396b07edee9356b3f31.html">said Monday</a>.</p>
<p>That particular region has drawn international attention, in part because it's home to film-maker Josh Fox, director of Gasland <span class="caps">II</span>, who first began investigating fracking after and oil and gas company sent him an offer to lease his family's land.<br /><br />
“This proves that people, organized and passionate can actually win sometimes,” Mr. Fox <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RealTruthNow/posts/587596064626399">said</a>. “In the grand scheme of things, this is a small victory, but it's <span class="caps">HUGE</span>. It's the Upper Delaware.”<br /><br />
Economics played a major role in the lease cancellations. Newfield Exploration said the price of gas had dropped too low to justify holding leases in the area. The Delaware River Basin, unlike most of Pennyslvania, has been under a shale drilling moratorium since the Marcellus rush began.<br /><br />
“There were repeated complaints about the moratorium and the regulatory confusion, because they could not make any plans,” <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/07/16/gas-companies-drop-wayne-county-leases/">said</a> Mr. Wynne, whose organization has said it intends to sue over the continuing moratorium and their loss of expected royalty payments. “There’s no end in sight so that added up to them saying the heck with it.”</p>
<p><span style="font-size:9px;">Photo Credit: Clean Water Action</span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5401">Marcellus shale</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6687">Clean Water Action</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13207">waste treatment corporation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13208">radioactive fracking waste</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11831">radium</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13209">radium-226</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13210">radium-228</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13211">uranium</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6843">wastewater</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5137">hydraulic fracturing</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6040">Tom Corbett</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13212">Allegheny River</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2920">pollution</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13213">health impacts from fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8479">radon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5760">josh fox</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13214">Gasland II</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7809">Delaware River Basin</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13225">radioactivity from fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13226">shale gas wastewater</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6074">fracking wastewater</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13227">wastewater disposal</a></div></div></div>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:02:00 +0000Sharon Kelly7330 at http://www.desmogblog.comRadioactive Waste From the Marcellus Shale Continues to Draw Concernhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/03/radioactive-materials-marcellus-shale-continue-draw-concern
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/radioactivebarrel.jpg?itok=8u9dMonD" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Amid all the pushback to fracking, most of the attention has focused on what drillers put into the ground. The amount of water used. The chemicals that make up energy companies' secret mix. Whether these dangerous chemicals will contaminate our drinking water. But one of the biggest problems of fracking, indeed, the Achilles heel of this innovative drilling technique that is giving fossil fuels a second lease on life is the waste that comes out of the ground.</p>
<p>How will we handle the massive amounts of toxic waste that each well produces when fracking is used? Will we dump the millions of gallons of wastewater produced from each well into rivers, pass it through sewage treatment plants, allow it to evaporate in open-faced pits, inject it into the ground at special disposal sites?</p>
<p>One of the reasons these questions are so urgent is that this wastewater is often radioactive. When it was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?ref=drillingdown">revealed</a> in February, 2011 that Pennsylvania was not only sending millions of gallons of this waste, sometimes with radium levels 3,000 times the safe level, through sewage treatment plants incapable of correct for radioactivity which then discharged into rivers, state officials panicked and <a href="http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/02/ap-reports-that-no-radiation-in.html">denied</a> there was cause for concern.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>This January, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection <a href="http://http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=19827&amp;typeid=1">announced</a> that it would undertake a “comprehensive” study of radiation from oil and gas development in the state, home to the most actively drilled parts of the Marcellus shale. At the same time, the agency re-publicized results from tests downstream from wastewater treatment plants, which until 2011 had taken Marcellus wastewater carrying naturally occurring radioactive materials like radium and uranium.<br /><br />
“Most results showed no detectable levels of radioactivity, and the levels that were detectable did not exceed safe drinking water standards,” the agency said in its January statement.<br /><br />
But it turns out those results weren’t the whole story when it comes to the handling of radioactive materials from the state’s fracking boom.<br /><br />
Last week, the <span class="caps">EPA</span> <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/9FC2BD02936B253785257B73006C68F7">announced</a> it has reached a <a href="http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/public_notices.htm#hartpabrine">settlement</a> with an industrial waste treatment plant which had been discharging natural gas wastewater into a Pennsylvania creek without properly treating it. Environmental regulators discovered high levels of radium around the plant’s discharge pipe. The plant was fined over $80,000 and the operator agreed to make up to $30 million in upgrades before accepting any more Marcellus shale wastewater.<br /><br />
The industrial wastewater plant, Pennsylvania Brine Treatment Josephine, was first <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/contaminantcharacterizationofeffluent.pdf">studied</a> by Conrad Volz and a team of students at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, who found high levels of contaminants associated with drilling wastewater in Blacklick Creek, part of the Allegheny River watershed, where the plant discharged. Professor Volz’s team did not test for radioactivity, however. In April 2011, the Pennsylvania <span class="caps">DEP</span> <a href="http://thetartan.org/2011/4/25/scitech/marcellus">asked</a> drillers to voluntarily stop trucking wastewater to other plants that <a href="http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/03/Sewage-Plants-Struggle-Treat-Wastewater.html">discharged</a> into the state’s rivers and streams.</p>
<p>But in June of that year, state officials tested sediments around Pennsylvania Brine Treatment's Josephine plant. Those tests uncovered high levels of radium 226 – 44 times the drinking water standard – in the plant's discharge pipe.</p>
<p>There's a saying among environmental regulators that “dillution is the solution to pollution” because when contaminants are watered down, levels of toxic materials can fall below safety thresholds. Wastewater from treatment plants is discharged into rivers and streams, so many shale gas boosters argued that even if treatment plants could not remove radioactive materials, the fast-moving water could dilute any resulting contamination. But the tests around the Josephine plant showed that dilution was not sufficient – levels of radium 226 over 65 feet downstream were 66 percent higher then the drinking water standard.</p>
<p>The levels of radioactivity found at the Josephine plant were not high enough to cause any health threat to passersby or to workers, but those levels are high enough that if the radium entered a person's body – whether through an open wound or through drinking contaminated water – there could be a health hazard. Radium also <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1.html#document/p417/a9945">bioaccumulates</a> in fish, meaning that fish in the creek who ingested the radioactive metal could carry higher levels than were in the water.</p>
<p>In February of 2011, several months before those tests were taken, Pennsylvania had <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gas.html">drawn national attention</a> for allowing plants that discharged into drinking water sources like rivers and streams to take Marcellus wastewater, which carries higher levels of radioactive materials than waste from other oil and gas formations, without testing at any point to make sure that drinking water standards were not exceeded. Desmog has <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/radionuclides-tied-shale-gas-fracking-can-t-be-ignored-possible-health-hazard">previously reported</a> on the threat from radionuclides in shale gas waste.</p>
<p>A different round of tests of Pennsylvania rivers near treatment plants had been seized on by former state environmental officials and trumpeted as an indication that wastewater was being properly handled and that state regulations were sufficient to police the industry. But the multi-year Clean Water Act investigation of the Josephine plant, conducted under the watchful eye of the feds, turned up a markedly different result.<br /><br />
Pennsylvania state regulators’ long-run difficulty policing the industry is particularly troubling because right now, the agency charged with protecting the environment in Pennsylvania is in turmoil. The <span class="caps">DEP</span> in this state – ground zero for the shale gas boom – is being run, <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/03/part-time_dep_secretary_pennsy.html#cmpid=nwsltrhead">part-time</a>, by a person with no environmental background who is pulling double-duty as the governor’s deputy chief of staff.<br /><br />
Of course, this interim appointment was made because the former secretary, Michael Krancer, <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/03/corbetts_sinking_ship_or_reali.html">stepped down</a> while under investigation by the state’s auditor general for how his office handled water contamination testing related to shale gas.</p>
<p>All of this calls into question the ability of states to regulate fracking booms effectively.<span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><b style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline ! important; float: none;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></span><br /><br />
The hazards from shale gas drilling are complex. Another concern related to the high levels of radium in shale wastewater is the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/experts-air-serious-concerns-new-york-fracking-decision">radon produced</a> alongside the natural gas. Radon, a highly carcinogenic gas, is produced when radium undergoes radioactive decay and does not burn so it could be released into houses and workplaces by gas-fired appliances.<br /><br />
Earlier this month, kitchen workers in New York City organized a public forum on the gas and the possible risks for the health of New Yorkers if a new pipeline, designed to ship Marcellus gas to major metropolises in the region, is constructed.<br /><br />
New York governor Andrew Cuomo very recently <a href="http://www.wskg.org/wskg_news/cuomo-will-make-decision-fracking-2014-election">announced</a> that he plans to make a decision on the state’s drilling moratorium soon. New York’s current assessment of the dangers from radon is thin, experts have alleged, pointing out that only a few paragraphs are devoted to the lethal gas.</p>
<p>Plans are underway to construct a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/spectra-pipeline-fracking-new-york-city-activists_n_3209242.html">pipeline</a> that would carry Marcellus gas to the nation's biggest city, New York City. But if that happens, some experts warn of a potential public health crisis. The problem centers around the way that radon breaks down. Radon has a half life of only 3.8 days, meaning that if the gas takes about a week to travel from the wellhead to the consumer, radons levels will have fallen of by 75 percent. But the Spectra pipeline would take Pennsylvania Marcellus gas to New York in less than a day, giving the radon very little time to decay.<br /><br />
New York’s current plan is to test for radon once drilling goes forward, “in order to verify that they do not pose an unanticipated health risk to end-users of the gas.” Elizabeth Glass Geltman of <span class="caps">CUNY</span> School of Public Health <a href="http://thevillager.com/2013/05/23/spectra-pipeline-radon-fear-starting-to-catch-fire/">told a crowded room</a> at the public forum this month, “If you wait for that to happen, the infrastructure will be in place and the argument will be that we can’t change the infrastructure,” she warned.<br /><br />
The science on radon in the gas is evolving – the United State Geological Service <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/MarcellusDN/usgs-study-of-radon-in-marcellus-shale-gas">sampled</a> a tiny handful of wells in a preliminary analysis and the levels they found in that sample were on the low end of the estimates made by experts. But that study only looked at 3 Marcellus wells, and the <span class="caps">USGS</span> said there was a need for further testing. The levels the <span class="caps">USGS</span> found were as high as 20 times the levels <span class="caps">EPA</span> considers safe for indoor air, so dillution should be plenty to take care of any possible health concerns, but <a href="http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radonmarcellus.pdf">some experts</a> believe other Marcellus wells may carry much higher levels of radon – and have calcualted that it could pose a serious public health threat.<br /><br />
In the meantime, some in New York are <a href="http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/2012/06/letter-to-ny-city-council-re-joint-hearings-on-radon-in-natural-gas-from-the-marcellus-shale/">pressing </a>for change through the legislature. A <a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S4921-2013">state bill</a> would require monitoring for radon in all natural gas (not just Marcellus gas). But in neighboring Pennsylvania, the state only plans radon testing “as appropriate” as part of its ongoing radioactivity study.</p>
<p>Time will tell how thorough those tests will be.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5401">Marcellus shale</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8479">radon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11831">radium</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12742">Spectra pipeline</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6685">Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7257">new york city</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6285">andrew cuomo</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5930">fracking moratorium</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12743">wastewater treatment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12744">radium 226</a></div></div></div>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:00:00 +0000Sharon Kelly7197 at http://www.desmogblog.comExperts Air Serious Concerns Before New York Fracking Decisionhttp://www.desmogblog.com/experts-air-serious-concerns-new-york-fracking-decision
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/120111frack.jpg?itok=uvAeVuyb" alt="James Thilman/Gothamist" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; ">Two recent <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/26/us-usa-newyork-fracking-idUSTRE81P01820120226" style="color: rgb(51, 153, 204); text-decoration: none; ">court decisions</a> in New York state upheld the right of towns to use zoning laws to limit or even ban fracking within their borders. Other states and cities such as <a href="http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/02/drilling_task_force_loosens_re.php" style="color: rgb(51, 153, 204); text-decoration: none; ">Dallas</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/md-lawmakers-wrangle-over-natural-gas-tax/2012/02/13/gIQAQzkpBR_blog.html" style="color: rgb(51, 153, 204); text-decoration: none; ">Maryland</a>, and <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4300174/review-says-nc-rules-need-update.html" style="color: rgb(51, 153, 204); text-decoration: none; ">North Carolina</a>, are still trying to figure out whether, and if so how, to proceed with new drilling.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; ">But the big decision that concerned citizens are watching is the one to be made by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo about his state’s moratorium. New York received more than 40,000 public comments on fracking and is plowing through them now.</p>
<p>The state has yet to publish those documents on the web, but DeSmogBlog has obtained many of them. Here is our initial shortlist of comments that offer the most important warnings and useful insights.</p>
<h3>
A Hidden Threat?</h3>
<p>One of the most overlooked but potentially dangerous public health issues relating to unconventional gas drilling is radon. This odorless and radioactive gas comes up from the wells mixed with the gas that gets piped to consumers. Highly carcinogenic, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, just behind cigarette smoking, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html">according to the <span class="caps">EPA</span></a>.</p>
<p>In his <a href="http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radonmarcellus.pdf">comments, Dr. Marvin Resnikoff</a>, director of Radioactive Waste Management Associates, concludes that radon levels in the gas that will come from Marcellus and likely be delivered to nearly 12 million New York residents will be far higher than current levels. As a result, “the potential number of fatal lung cancer deaths due to radon in natural gas from the Marcellus shale range from 1,182 to 30,448” he writes.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>The threat is greater for New Yorkers and others living within the Marcellus shale because the gas not only is believed to carry higher radon levels but it also has far less time for the radon in the gas to decay since it is being transported shorter distances to consumers. Most gas used by New Yorkers presently comes from Texas and Louisiana rather than from Pennsylvania or New York.</p>
<p>Mr. Resnikoff isn’t alone in sounding this alarm. James W. Ring, a physics professor at Hamilton College, <a href="http://www.oneidacountycourier.com/2011/10/08/natural-gas-from-hydrofracking-in-marcellus-shale-may-result-in-high-levels-of-radon-gas-and-lead-in-homes/">previously raised similar concerns</a>.</p>
<h3>
The Feds Weigh In</h3>
<p>In an unusually <a href="http://www.epa.gov/region2/newsevents/hydro.html">cautionary series of comments</a>, the <span class="caps">EPA</span> runs down a litany of more than 200 problems with New York’s proposed regulations. The letter, in effect, emphasizes that New York needs to substantially strengthen its oversight of the industry before allowing shale gas drilling.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">EPA</span> objects that New York <a href="http://www.epa.gov/region3/marcellus_shale/#wastewater">underestimates how radioactive the waste from the Marcellus will be</a> citing<a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/90829d899627a1d98525735900400c2b/4816775ad0e881ab8525788e006a91ed!OpenDocument"> tests from Pennsylvania</a>, and suggests rules that would make fracking off-limits for over a half-million acres across the state. They express concern that the state may not have the budget and manpower to enforce the necessary drilling rules.</p>
<p>The agency also questions New York about the prudence of allowing drillers to sell the salty but <a href="http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011107200369">radiation-laced wastewater to be spread on roads</a> to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gas.html">fight ice and dust</a>.</p>
<h3>
First Boom, Then Bust</h3>
<p>The oil and gas industry love to talk about the jobs that new drilling will bring to New York. What the industry doesn’t like to discuss are questions about who gets those jobs, how long they last and the hidden costs that come with drilling.</p>
<p>For a more sober and honest discussion of these issues, look to economists <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Economists_Letter_to_Cuomo.pdf">Jannette M. Barth and Edward C. Kokkelenberg who explain</a> the financial boom and bust cycles created by drilling. In their letter to the state, these economists add that New York may never see the tax revenues projected, because the report relies on old data that overstates how much gas drillers can produce.</p>
<p>They also describe how the state over-estimates drilling’s benefits by ignoring the hidden impact the industry will have on some of upstate New York’s most lucrative businesses, such as <a href="http://grist.org/natural-gas/2011-05-19-fracking-with-our-food-how-gas-drilling-affects-farming/">farming</a>, <a href="http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=691">tourism</a>, hunting, and winemaking.</p>
<h3>
Private Gain at Public Risk</h3>
<p>The oil and gas industry has a long history of privatizing profits while socializing risk. Anna K. Sears of Rochester, <span class="caps">N.Y.</span> offers a <a href="http://www.r-cause.net/uploads/8/0/2/5/8025484/dec_comment_re_mortgages_aks_1-3-12.pdf">nice explanation</a> of the latest incarnation.</p>
<p>She describes how many gas leases allow companies to truck in tankers with chemicals, transport flammable gas and toxic waste, operate heavy equipment 24/7 and store gas underground, for years, all in a person’s back yard. Since mortgages <a href="https://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7139/images/Fracking-the-Homestead.pdf">forbid this kind of activity</a>, a growing number of banks won’t give new loans on homes with gas leases because they <a href="http://www.tompkins-co.org/tccog/gas_drilling/Public%20Hearing%20Comments/Individual%20Comments/chock,%20carol.pdf">don’t meet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standards</a>.</p>
<p>When it comes time to sell their homes, people who have leased their land may run into serious problems. Every banker, insurance executive, housing official and mortgage specialist should read this comment very closely.</p>
<h3>
And The List Goes On</h3>
<p>In comments signed by Pete Seeger, Ralph Nader, and dozens of government officials, scientists, and doctors, Walter Hang, President of Toxics Targeting, offers an unusually comprehensive list of concerns with proposed drilling in New York.</p>
<p>Mr. Hang’s letter calls for a ban on sending drilling wastewater, which is highly contaminated and often radioactive, <a href="http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/article-display.articles.waterworld.world-regions.europe.2011.12.Wastewater-plants-not-designed-for-fracking-water-says-Robert-F-Kennedy-Jr.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html">to sewage treatment plants</a>, which discharge into rivers upstream from public drinking water intakes. It also points out that gas companies are eying not only the Marcellus shale, but also another layer called the Utica shale, which is deeper so fracking requires more water and creates more wastewater.</p>
<p><br />
Mr. Hang skewers New York regulators for repeating one of the industry’s favorite but utterly false mantras: that fracking has never led to groundwater contamination. He also quotes from <a href="http://www.toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/dec_dobletter_Grannis2010-HL.pdf">internal emails</a> where state officials talk about staffing levels that are woefully inadequate and a threat to public health.</p>
<p>You want one-stop shopping for reasons that New York should take it slow?<a href="http://www.toxicstargeting.com/MarcellusShale/cuomo/coalition_letter/2011"> Look no further</a>.</p>
<p><br /><em>Image credit: <a href="http://gothamist.com/2011/12/01/fracking_mark_ruffalo_will_boo_if_y.php">James Thilman/Gothamist</a></em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-upload field-type-file field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><table class="sticky-enabled">
<thead><tr><th>Attachment</th><th>Size</th> </tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd"><td><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Economists_Letter_to_Cuomo.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=233970" title="Economists_Letter_to_Cuomo.pdf">Economists_Letter_to_Cuomo.pdf</a></span></td><td>228.49 KB</td> </tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4174">jobs</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5137">hydraulic fracturing</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5929">new york fracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6285">andrew cuomo</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6349">hydrofracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6843">wastewater</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6879">Radioactive</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7264">public comment period</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7797">Moratorium</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8001">NYDEC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8479">radon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8480">economic impact</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8481">boom</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8482">bust</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8483">mortgages</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8484">Fannie Mae</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8485">Freddie Mac</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8486">Pete Seeger</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8487">Ralph Nader</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8488">radioactivity</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8489">New York Department of Environmental Conservation</a></div></div></div>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:34:48 +0000Sharon Kelly6061 at http://www.desmogblog.com